View Single Post
Old January 29, 2013, 01:26 PM   #228
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,695
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The CRA and it most of it's follow ups were written to ensure that people have the necessaries in life (education, housing, employment, basic services etc) and not are not to be denied them for discriminatory reasons.

I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).

I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.
A person can legally refuse to rent an apartment to a pregnant (family status and sex), paraplegic (disability), Japanese (national origin), Ainu (race), Shinto (religion) with a pet goat ... as long as the refusal is based on discriminating between renters with or without goats. By your logic, legal discrimination has occurred, so housing "is not truly an essential right."

I would not sell a gun to a person with gang tats (think MS13). Yes, I would discriminate on the basis of tattoos, which is not legally prohibited. And that discrimination would not reflect in the least on whether the RKBA is or is not an essential right.
gc70 is online now  
Page generated in 0.03248 seconds with 7 queries